Is freedom a possibility?

[coberst]

Is freedom a possibility?

 

All thought is 95% (accuracy +/- 3%) unconscious thought.

 

The mind is embodied.

 

The ego says, Halt, Hold it.

 

The container is one of the primary schemas in which we think.

 

If you put it all together its spells:

• Human ideas are conditioned by deep psychological and social forces.

• We can operate freely but our horizons are limited.

• To facilitate free action we must recognize these horizons and these forces.

• Our horizons are determined by the historical reality into which we are born.

• Knowledge of our horizons and forces marks a beginning of free action and an ideal marks the telos of our action.

• Democracy is a suitable ideal as our telos.

[InfiniteNow]

All thought is 95% (accuracy +/- 3%) unconscious thought.

You have stated this as fact in many threads now, Coberst. Can you please address the following?

 

• What is your source? (author, title, edition, page, etc.)
  
• What are the parameters used to define "thought?"
  
• What are the parameters used to define "unconscious?" (should you use the word "conscious" in your definition, I ask that you define that as well).
  

 

 

[coberst]

You have stated this as fact in many threads now, Coberst. Can you please address the following?

 

• What is your source? (author, title, edition, page, etc.)
  
• What are the parameters used to define "thought?"
  
• What are the parameters used to define "unconscious?" (should you use the word "conscious" in your definition, I ask that you define that as well).
  

 

 

:Guns:

 

The source of my statement regarding the unconscious is "Philosophy in the Flesh"--Lakoff and Johnson. I do not know how to find info on the edition. The chapter is "The Cognitive Unconscious" the pages are 9-15. The 95% statement is on page 13.

 

I cannot find the parameters you speak of but the following is info I have taken from the referenced chapter.

 

I cannot find the answers to all of your questions but I suspect you can find this book at your local college library. I suggest to everyone that they get a "Friends of the Library" card at their local college. For a small yearly fee you can have access to all the books in a large library.

 

This books is well worth reading I think it is the most important book I have ever studied.

 

In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

 

This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

 

Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

 

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

 

Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

 

Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

 

When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

 

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

 

Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

 

The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

 

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff

 

What are some of the processes of thinking that must go on when I speak?

Accessing memories that I need

Perceiving the sounds as being language and breaking the language into phonetic aspects

Picking out words and assigning meaning appropriate to the context

Making some kind of pragmatic sense out of the whole

Framing the matter relative to the situation

Developing inferences

Constructing appropriate images

Interpreting the body language of the other person

Anticipating the direction of the conversation

Planning a response while listening

 

What are some of the processes of thinking that must go on when perceiving?

Sorting out the inputs from all of the senses

Focusing back and forth on desired object of perception

Developing categories and other conceptual structure

Developing inferences

 

I am quite likely doing both of these things at the same time I am walking or driving etc.

 

This list came from the afore mentioned chapter.

[InfiniteNow]

The source of my statement regarding the unconscious is "Philosophy in the Flesh"--Lakoff and Johnson. I do not know how to find info on the edition. The chapter is "The Cognitive Unconscious" the pages are 9-15. The 95% statement is on page 13.

 

Thanks, but a philisophy book does not serve as evidence to the validity of a claim such as that you posted. Do you have any better to offer? Do the authors of your fave book?

 

Also, the rest of your post does not address the questions I posed. Do you, perhaps, have some fresh words to share which are specific to the questions I posted?

 

You see, I've already read this pre-typed canned response elsewhere, and don't find it anywhere near adequate.

 

Is freedom a possibility? {moved from MF&P} - IIDB

 

 

One single book should never be treated as a bible. :Guns:

[InfiniteNow]

Review of Lakoff & Johnson

 

For the classical philosophers, the authors use their terminology of metaphors and folk theories to make a rather conventional commentary seem novel.

<...>

Plato, they claim, "had the metaphor Essences As Ideas, Aristotle has the converse metaphor, Ideas Are Essences." No philosopher who hopes to be "empirically responsible" should make such statements without much deeper analysis of how those metaphors relate to the words that Plato and Aristotle actually used. In their discussion of Aristotle's theory of causation, they fail to distinguish Aristotle's notion of aition and the Latin translation causa from the modern English word cause, which has undergone profound shifts of meaning in Newton's mechanics, Hume's philosophy, and more recent theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. They also apply the same term formal logic to Aristotle's syllogisms and to all the modern logicians despite the widely divergent opinions that the modern logicians have expressed about Aristotle and about each other.

<...>

The most irritating feature of the book is the authors' repeated claims of novelty, either for themselves or for their colleagues.

<...>

In summary, this book makes an important contribution to the ongoing debates about the roles of syntax, semantics, and world knowledge in language understanding and their dependency on the physical world and the human mechanisms for perceiving, interpreting, and interacting with the world. Its major weakness is its tendency to exclude other perspectives, such as Aristotle's, which can accommodate both formal logic and a theory of embodied mind. Although the authors frequently use the word neural, none of their discussion depends on the actual structure or method of operation of a neuron.

[coberst]

Thanks, but a philisophy book does not serve as evidence to the validity of a claim such as that you posted. Do you have any better to offer? Do the authors of your fave book?

 

Also, the rest of your post does not address the questions I posed. Do you, perhaps, have some fresh words to share which are specific to the questions I posted?

 

You see, I've already read this pre-typed canned response elsewhere, and don't find it anywhere near adequate.

 

Is freedom a possibility? {moved from MF&P} - IIDB

 

 

One single book should never be treated as a bible. :Guns:

 

This book is about cognitive science, it relies on empirical evidence. If you have already read my information about this matter why did you ask the question. If you refuse to read the book does your criticism have any value? A closed mind never won fair lady. A mixed metaphor.

 

If you were to read a cognitive science book perhaps you would not confuse it with philosophy no matter that the word "Philosophy" appears in the title. It pays to read beyond the surface.

[livingproof]

For Coberst,

are you questioning lakoff's statement or seeking to affirm lakoff's statement that "there is no Kantian autonomous person", toally free, as "most thought is unconscious"? And Infinite, I'm guessing, is probably asking the same thing I am: where is the statistical or empirical data to suport the grossly overgeneralized statements: almost all thought is unconscious, all thought is embodied

You can compare embodiment of lower function and transformation of lower cognitive function to higher (at which point reason is considered to have transcended the sensory-motor foundations by becoming something greater than the sum of its parts) by looking at "Mind in Society" (L. S. Vygotsky), just for SnG's.

Lakoff is defining and deconstructing operative paradigms of 'reason', not 'thought', as he establishes his premise. I wondered if that adds to the misunderstanding

He makes himself clear at the end of his introduction, and established his theoretical and investigative platform succinctly:

"Jointly, the cognitive unconscious, the embodiment of mind, and metaphorical thought require not only a new way of understanding reason and the nature of a person. They also require a new understanding of one of the most common and natural of human activities--asking philosophical questions."

[coberst]

For Coberst,

are you questioning lakoff's statement or seeking to affirm lakoff's statement that "there is no Kantian autonomous person", toally free, as "most thought is unconscious"? And Infinite, I'm guessing, is probably asking the same thing I am: where is the statistical or empirical data to suport the grossly overgeneralized statements: almost all thought is unconscious, all thought is embodied

You can compare embodiment of lower function and transformation of lower cognitive function to higher (at which point reason is considered to have transcended the sensory-motor foundations by becoming something greater than the sum of its parts) by looking at "Mind in Society" (L. S. Vygotsky), just for SnG's.

Lakoff is defining and deconstructing operative paradigms of 'reason', not 'thought', as he establishes his premise. I wondered if that adds to the misunderstanding

He makes himself clear at the end of his introduction, and established his theoretical and investigative platform succinctly:

"Jointly, the cognitive unconscious, the embodiment of mind, and metaphorical thought require not only a new way of understanding reason and the nature of a person. They also require a new understanding of one of the most common and natural of human activities--asking philosophical questions."

 

 

Read the post I gave to InfiniteNow. That will give you an idea of my source for the cognitive statements.

 

The book "Philosophy in the Flesh" would have to be read to answer your very broad question contained in this statement "where is the statistical or empirical data to suport the grossly overgeneralized statements: almost all thought is unconscious, all thought is embodied"

 

The book has a large bibliography of the research. Most of that research results are contained in professional journals.

[InfiniteNow]

This book is about cognitive science, it relies on empirical evidence. If you have already read my information about this matter why did you ask the question.

This was covered before your post:

You see, I've already read this pre-typed canned response elsewhere, and don't find it anywhere near adequate.

 

 

If you were to read a cognitive science book perhaps you would not confuse it with philosophy no matter that the word "Philosophy" appears in the title.

Your comment is more humorous than you know, since I used to help write books on cognition and perception. If you wish to derive all of your thoughts from the work of one author, then go ahead. However, I myself would find that exceedingly boring and prone to failure.

 

It's disheartening that you do not speak with your own voice, and simply copy/paste responses to questions.

[coberst]

InfiniteNow

 

 

I have been browsing these Internet discussion forums for more than three years and as a result I have concluded that 95% of these forums are merely ‘verbal video games’.

 

I have accepted my self induced challenge to help make this communication vehicle more than what it has become. Self-actualizing self-learning by adults is, in my opinion, a major step toward realizing the goal of transforming these forums into becoming a force for intellectual discourse. When such adults begin to seek a place for intelligent discourse about important ideas the Internet forums will slowly morph into a medium only 90% dedicated to verbal video gaming.

 

Let the games be diminished.

[TZK]

Dear coberst,

 

I disagree with your approach. You express your ideas in a language that has little meaning to the average person to expose simple truths that I think could be better determined and better communicated through introspection.

 

A philosopher says I recognize this truth about myself and if you see this about yourself as well then you can follow my reasoning. I think it takes much more effort to gauge every process of the physical human brain and recognize every chain reaction and drive yourself crazy trying to reconnect it to somethign meaningful to a human being. And then cannot communicate it unless your readers learn your language to decipher what you are saying all just to communicate the exact same thing a philosopher might say, but with the added danger that you have misinterpreted the meaning of some physical process.

[coberst]

Dear coberst,

 

Your approach is doomed to failure. You express your ideas in a private language with no meaning to the average person just to expose simple truths that could be better determined and better communicated through introspection.

 

A philosopher says I recognize this truth about myself and if you see this about yourself as well then you can follow my reasoning. You spend 10x as much effort to gauge every process of the physical human brain and recognize every chain reaction and drive yourself crazy trying to reconnect it to somethign meaningful to a human being, but then cannot communicate it unless your readers learn your private language to decipher what you are saying all just to communicate THE EXACT SAME THING but with the added danger that you have misinterpreted the meaning of some physical process.

 

Most everyone has played with jigsaw puzzles and recognize how we put such puzzles together. When we start a new puzzle the first thing we do is construct the frame. We gather all the pieces with one straight edge and slowly construct the outer perimeter of the puzzle.

 

Such is the case when we organize knowledge. When we begin to learn a new domain of knowledge in school our teachers help us set up the frame. They hold our hands while we construct the outside boundary and slowly fill in the image by adding new facts.

 

After we leave school if we want to become a self-learner and to become knowledgeable of new domains we will follow this same procedure but with a significant difference. We will have no teacher to supply us with the pieces of the puzzle. Especially difficult will be gathering the appropriate side pieces so that we can frame our domain. After this we might very well have to imagine the image of the puzzle because we will not have a teacher to help us ‘see’ what the domain ‘looks like’.

 

When we become a self-learner we will often find pieces of knowledge that do not fit our already constructed frames, when this happens we have two choices. We can throw away the new fragment of knowledge or we can start a journey of discovery in an effort to organize the construction of a new domain. The odd piece of knowledge is either trashed or we must begin a big effort to start construction on a new big puzzle.

 

I think that knowledge is easily acquired when that knowledge fits easily within one’s accepted ideologies. If we have a ready place to put a new fragment of knowledge we can easily find a place to fit it in. When the knowledge does not fit within our already functioning ideas that fact will be discarded unless a great deal of effort is made to find a home for that fragment of knowledge.

 

We are unable to move beyond our ideologies unless we exert great effort. No one can give us that type of knowledge; we must go out of our way to stalk it, wrestle it to the ground and then find other pieces that will complete a frame. That is why our schools do not try to take us beyond our narrow world because it is too costly in time and effort. Our schools prepare us to be good workers and strong consumers, anything beyond that we must capture on our own.

 

No one can give us that kind of knowledge. It can only be presented as an awakening of consciousness and then we can, if we have the energy and curiosity go and capture the knowledge of something totally new and start a new puzzle.

[TZK]

I somewhat disagree. I think that it is possible to give that knowledge to other people in various ways. I believe the trick is to give them the knowledge in such a way that they believe it is meaningful.

 

One tactic is to create a story that is fun to listen to or watch for it's own sake. Examples go back to ancient times with stories and fables and now include movies and tv shows that have moral based stories. Every truth is meaningful because it allows you to deal with some situation or other, so therefore creating and sharing a situation where the truth is meaningful is one way to show the value of that truth.

 

Another way is to try and show how a truth affects situations someone has already been in. For example someone might be mad that another person has gossiped about them. But they may focus their anger on that person and just try to battle them in the same way, when instead some philisophical truth could allow them to better handle the situation. Because of their experience with the situation that made the philisophical truth meaningful, a channel to communicate it to them has been created.

 

I believe that if knowledge is meaningful to someone in their every day life then it can be communicated to them from their everyday life experiences. When there is a choice between this, even a poorly worded version of this, and studying brain processes for some kind of explanation I think people choose the former. IE someone is more likely to listen to another girl saying "You can't let those people bother you" than they are to read a book on neurology, but they would be even more likely to listen to a well spoken philosopher talk about how gossiping is cowardly because you are hiding from your opponents response to your claims...

[coberst]

TZK

 

I think that you are correct, a good writer can do better than a poor writer. However, I think that adults must learn to take responsibility for their own learning requirments. I think that it is important for all adults to develop a more positive attitude about learning after there school days are over.

[TZK]

I agree with you 100% there, and even a really intuitive AND well written argument can be rejected by someone who just doesn't want to admit they didn't already know something.